You know, if the President were elected by popular vote, then we wouldn't have any of these conversations, since everybody's vote would be as meaningful (or meaningless) as the next person's. But those who have the extra voting power don't wish to give up their privilege, so that won't be happening.
"Dotard" is an old word, and while most people were not familiar with it, once Dear Leader insulted the other Dear Leader with it, it became much more widely known. I don't think there are that many people who are conflating it with "retard." It should not be banned--anyone offended should be given a dictionary. The same as the word "niggardly" has nothing to do with race, just how free spending someone is willing to be. As for abolishing the EC "shitting" on the fine folks of Ohio, Florida, or any other "swing" state, tell that to a liberal in Utah or a conservative in the People's Revolutionary Socialist Republic of Massachusettstan. Those are the people whose votes don't count
I really don't think Dems have a choice. I know this is a presidential thread, but 2020 is just as much about Congress as it is about the president. If you look at the 2018 mid terms, there were literally no urban districts available for us to flip. We already had them all. There were maybe about 10 districts that were urban/suburban mix, but to flip the House we needed 24. The only path for us was to appeal to exurban districts, and we did it masterfully. Pelosi backed off and allowed those candidates to define themselves as separate from the mainstream coastal Democratic identity. The party chose to have several small campaigns instead of one broad national campaign in order to flip those districts. The problem in 2016 was the fact that in presidential years it's hard to hide from the national narrative. Our hopes in Congress tanked on Hillary's coattails. This is why 2020 is such a potential minefield. The coastal Democratic narrative has not gotten any more appealing in these exurban districts. If we want to add any more seats in the House, the list of winnable districts is going to be even more exurban this time. And in order to win the Senate, we need to win in Colorado, Arizona, Maine and North Carolina. Colorado is the only one where a hard left national narrative might win, but the other 3 are problematic. Until the math changes, I don't think Dems have a choice. You need a 50 state strategy. If 2018 taught us anything is that we shouldn't punt anywhere. We even picked up seats in Utah and Kansas. A base only partisan campaign from the Dems might win you the White House because Trump is such an erratic wildcard. But it's not going to open the door to any long term legislative success. A base only national campaign will likely cost us the Senate, so every bill will just get blocked there. Not to mention governors and state legislatures ...
Warren passes Biden in the RCP polling average. Four out of five polls currently averaged have her leading Biden. The one poll that doesn't has Biden +12 over Warren. But I think it's safe to say Biden is no longer the frontrunner.
Meh, I say fvck the rural vote, go after the Globalist vote. We need the realignment to happen already, Internationalists vs Nationalists. Go after the suburbs try to maximize the votes in smaller cities and their suburbs. There are some Metro areas that are still out there for Democrats to pick or increase their share. https://www.citylab.com/equity/2016/12/mapping-how-americas-metro-areas-voted/508313/ But that is just me, perhaps doing so would be a disaster for democrats.
Having said the above. The economy we now have and the economy that we will have in the future, are going to favor large cities over smaller cities. That is why Trump did better in smaller rural cities than Romney. You can say they became more racist (or they showed them selves more) or economic anxiety, what ever you want to call it. http://jedkolko.com/2016/11/11/the-geography-of-the-2016-vote/
Sadly, I'm sure there's someone in this thread who buys all of this bad and dishonest logic. I am seriously considering boycotting October 15 debate to bring attention to DNC/corporate media’s effort to rig 2020 primary. Not against Bernie this time, but against voters in early states Iowa, New Hampshire, South… --> https://t.co/x5P3GFGbyn pic.twitter.com/UgKCj6DGI0— Tulsi Gabbard 🌺 (@TulsiGabbard) October 10, 2019
I already said this in the debate thread, but this is deeply stupid. A line has to be drawn somewhere, using some combo of arbitrary metrics. That's just the reality. Tulsi simply isn't living in the real world if she can't accept that she just isn't gaining enough traction to deserve coverage and entry to these debates. If anything, the bar for entry is way too low, not too high. Really, as far as I'm concerned, there's two tiers of candidates who deserve to still stay in the race; candidates with a realistic path to be the nominee, and candidates with a realistic path to impacting the race. Tier one is Bernie, Warren, Biden, tier two is Buttgieg, Yang, Harris, maybe Booker and Klobuchar if you really want to be inclusive about it. Everyone else can screw off.
That isn't true, on multiple levels. And if it were, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Firstly, on one level, the amount of population per electoral vote. In Wyoming, they get three electoral votes for a population of 537 000. In California, they get 55 electoral votes for a population of 39.56 million. 39,560,000/55=719,273 So if everyone in California and Wyoming voted, each individual Wyomingian's vote would be worth over three times that of each individual Californian's vote in terms of population versus electoral vote distribution. Literally in terms of mathematics, a Californian's vote is almost worthless compared to the vote of individuals in small states. On another level, competitiveness. Because of the current landscape, most states have strong tendencies to polarize to one end or another of two roughly equally-matched parties, taking most electoral votes by and large off the table barring an extraordinary blowout. As a result, competition for states that can be the tipping point of what would otherwise be a close election is massive. As a result, votes in states that have been competitive historically are fought over tooth and nail, and are much more valuable than votes in polarized states. If Democrats could somehow "cash in" ten votes from California, or Republicans ten votes from Texas, to gain one vote in Ohio or Pennsylvania after the fact, they absolutely would do that. Your vote, like it or not, is more valuable than the majority of Americans' from not just a population standpoint, but a competitive one. On still a further level, if it were genuinely true that everyone's vote counts the same, Hilary Clinton would be President. Period. It's obvious to a toddler which number is bigger between 65 mil and 63 mil, all else being equal. Why can a toddler see what you can't? You aren't just wrong when you say your vote counts the same as everyone else's, you're obviously wrong, on three different levels. A calculator could tell you that, a political strategist could tell you that, and a toddler could tell you that.
Thanks for the explanation, but do you really think I didn’t know all of that? Do you think that a multitude of people haven’t done exactly what you just did? We live in a country with 50 individual elections that are used to collectively elect the president. I get one vote in my state election as you do in yours. Maybe you should move here to make it more favorable to your preferred candidate. Maybe my pointless vote is just as pointless as a Republican that lives in LA. But again, thanks for the condescending post.
Just correcting an inaccuracy. You said a wrong thing. How am I supposed to know you know it's wrong?
She used to be a teacher but got fired because she got pregnant... Somehow that’s supposed to look bad on her...